It’s an extraordinary situation and I’m wondering what sort of analogies make sense.

If there were tobacco companies warning everyone who would listen in the 1950’s that cigarettes cause cancer, it would be, like, points for honesty, but why don’t you stop selling them then?

The difference being that there are a lot of good uses for AI chat and it doesn’t directly harm most people.

It seems like the customers who would misuse AI are getting left out of the discussion? It’s as if arms dealers were being solely blamed for war, or if arms dealers were expected to stop wars.

The difference being that a single, general purpose product that can do such a wide variety of things isn’t really comparable to making weapons that are only good for one thing.

Maybe it’s as if car manufacturers in the early 20th century were predicting highways, traffic, and pollution.

Or imagine if early dot-com companies were predicting the various dangers of social networks?